This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?

This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?

I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.

I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.

This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?

I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.

I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.

Red Bull won't be without an engine deal for 2019, they have links with Aston Martin and Honda.

Just a quick thought on Haas I am surprised that no blue-chip American company have come forward to sponsor them, I like to see them do well.

Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.

I always assumed they had those votes anyway if they really wanted them. Much like Mercedes and their customers.

Always a deal to be done under the table regarding supply if you want something bad enough(Discount,Fuel,lubricant or Software upgrade etc..).

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.

I always assumed they had those votes anyway if they really wanted them. Much like Mercedes and their customers.

Always a deal to be done under the table regarding supply if you want something bad enough(Discount,Fuel,lubricant or Software upgrade etc..).

In that regard Renault has to have the worst bargaining power of any team, since their customers are both top teams with little need of discounts and strong agendas of their own. Both Ferrari customers and all the Merc customers are distinctly second-tier teams.

Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.

I always assumed they had those votes anyway if they really wanted them. Much like Mercedes and their customers.

Always a deal to be done under the table regarding supply if you want something bad enough(Discount,Fuel,lubricant or Software upgrade etc..).

In that regard Renault has to have the worst bargaining power of any team, since their customers are both top teams with little need of discounts and strong agendas of their own. Both Ferrari customers and all the Merc customers are distinctly second-tier teams.

Agree for their current situation anyway,absolutely.

I can remember the rumours about them dangling software packages to Williams and more often than not Lotus in 2012/13 to make them more competitive at certain times to take more points off Ferrari and McLaren though.

Not quite the same thing but just meaning I don't think they'd be much different if in another situation.

_________________"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967

This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?

I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.

I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.

Red Bull won't be without an engine deal for 2019, they have links with Aston Martin and Honda.

Just a quick thought on Haas I am surprised that no blue-chip American company have come forward to sponsor them, I like to see them do well.

Aston Martin don't have an engine. If they can do a deal with Honda all good, but will Honda want them? They have just had a hassle with Mclaren and have seen the events with Renault, including Renault v STR so may tread carefully around committing themselves to RedBull. Indeed, Red Bull may not want Honda.

Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.

But neither Haas nor Sauber have a vote in the F1 Strategy Group. And Ferrari have their infamous veto anyway. Thankfully I don't see how this arrangement further strengthens their political power within the sport, I think it is just for marketing purposes.

Ferrari having three votes at the table. Can't see them using that leverage at all.

But neither Haas nor Sauber have a vote in the F1 Strategy Group. And Ferrari have their infamous veto anyway. Thankfully I don't see how this arrangement further strengthens their political power within the sport, I think it is just for marketing purposes.

They threaten to pull out and it seriously effects almost a third of the grid. Look at the extra power Having STR got Red Bull. Bernie bribed them to leave FOTA. With two teams the result of a pull out is more severe so the threat has to be taken more seriously.

This doesn’t get them around the rule regarding supplying more than 4 teams does it?Example, could Ferrari say “Haas and Sauber don’t have Ferrari engines, theirs are Alfa and Maserati. We can provide for FI, Red Bull and Williams”?

I see it as the other way around. If Red Bull are without an engine 2019, the engine maker with the least 'customers' is compelled to supply them if no deal is available to them.

I can not see Ferrari wanting a customer report similar to the one Red Bull gave to Renault, so its, Ah, no we already supply 4 teams sorry.

Yeah it would be in their best interest not to supply more teams. Didn’t see it that way. I was seeing it from an alternate world, where they might offer 4 teams Ferrari Engines, 4 teams Alfa Engines and 4 teams Maserati Engines* and have a monopoly on votes etc. But yeah, that would mean that they’re building 24 Engines from the same place, which would be a nightmare.

I tried looking for the official thread but was unable to find it so I necroed this one.

Haas are the new Force India aren't they? They've been pretty respectable since day one and now, in year three, they seem to have become best of the rest (at least to start the season) once you step down from the top three teams (who are essentially in a different class altogether).

What a golden opportunity this is for both Kevin and Ro-Gro. For Kevin especially, this year is very important. I think any chance of Ro-Gro driving a top car has gone out the window by now. He's a veteran driver and he's just not quite up to snuff when compared to the elite drivers on the grid. Kevin though is still quite young and I think an impressive season (particularly if he can sneak back up to the podium for the first time since his debut race) might lead to a genuine opportunity somewhere.

I think the paddock will be a bit upset by Haas though. It appears that the 2018 Haas and the 2017 Ferrari have quite a lot in common...

I think the paddock will be a bit upset by Haas though. It appears that the 2018 Haas and the 2017 Ferrari have quite a lot in common...

Well according to Gene Haas that is by design. Not only are they getting their PUs from Ferrari but also a lot of their suspension components and running gear. Gene is quoted as saying "Take the steering rack. It's incredibly complex. If we decide to design our own, we need designers, engineers, test equipment... and if you make it perfect, you wind up with the same steering rack as Ferrari. Steering racks are already at such a high level there are really no gains to be made."

Question is, if Haas does consistently make Q3 and race at that same level, will Ferrari continue to give them the recent generation components that they are supposedly getting now.

Maybe Ferrari should spend more effort on winning a title than creating 10 baby-Ferraris.

Exaggerate much?

All the whining here and in the pre-race broadcast, trying to make more out of this Haas/Ferrari relationship than there is is actually funny. Extra votes, last years Ferrari car. A "junior team" is hardly a new idea is it? As for the three Ferrari engined teams... as was said earlier, do you not think Mercedes did not have "votes" from their engine customers? Seriously?

Maybe Ferrari should spend more effort on winning a title than creating 10 baby-Ferraris.

Exaggerate much?

All the whining here and in the pre-race broadcast, trying to make more out of this Haas/Ferrari relationship than there is is actually funny. Extra votes, last years Ferrari car. A "junior team" is hardly a new idea is it? As for the three Ferrari engined teams... as was said earlier, do you not think Mercedes did not have "votes" from their engine customers? Seriously?

Historically not. Or nothing similar to the pattern between Ferrari and Sauber.

I don't think there's anything wrong with what Haas or Ferrari are doing by the way. Seems sensible from all sides.

We've seen everything in this circus, we've seen Crashgate... The thought of a team closely related to Ferrari helping fix a race to allow Ferrari's bratty and mildly incompetent #1 driver to win the first race to put pressure on Mercedes isn't too farfetched.

In fact, that's exactly the sort of thing Ferrari would do. With the blessing of Liberty Media, who wants a story for this season. They want to force Hamilton vs Vettel down our throats.

_________________

"Ask any racer, any real racer... It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning is winning." (Dominic Toretto, "The Fast and The Furious")

Singapore 2008 required three people to pull off: the team manager, the strategist making the calls on the pitwall and the driver. However this sort of ruse would require the entire race team to be complicit. And to take up acting lessons.

Once upon a time, the FIA got REALLY upset with wheels coming off, they made retaining bridles compulsory, and punished teams if retaining nuts came off after a pit stop.

What penalty did Haas get for two incidents within minutes of each other ? I know they were "penalised" by the actual wheel incidents, but that is racing. What real penalty will the FIA impose for such dangerous acts ?

(This is NOT a pro-Maclaren, or anti-Ferrari post, this is a safety issue.)

i just read that steiner is saying it was crossed wheel nuts. watching both pit stops you can see guys on the left side still working on the tire when the light goes green/car comes off the jack and leaves. both times the guys immediately waved at the box signaling the tire wasn't on. neither time did the left side signal the car was ready to go, but the light went green

Well, I don't. The conspiracy theory IMO is wild and far off the mark. I have to admit I thought the same about crashgate, though.

Agree with you on Crashgate, but I just can't believe this one. First off, I don't think Haas would do it. It would destroy their image forever if it gets out, it would be ridiculously hard to keep under wraps, and it cost them a chance to get some wonderful publicity by finishing the first race in 2nd in the WCC.

Now, how it really did happen is a question that may lead to heads rolling. But I don't buy the conspiracy theory for a second.

Hello, this is Gunther.Gunther, it's Maurizio. We need a safety car. Can you screw up a wheel attachment on Roman's pit stop?Aw man, we just lost Kevin. Don't ask me to take Roman out of the race just so you can leapfrog Lewis on your pit strategy.Gunther! Do you want the latest software to go with your Ferrari engines for the rest of the year?Aw come on Maurizio, don't do that to me!!!!!Do it Gunther!!!Yes sir!! (Click)

Hello, this is Gunther.Gunther, it's Maurizio. We need a safety car. Can you screw up a wheel attachment on Roman's pit stop?Aw man, we just lost Kevin. Don't ask me to take Roman out of the race just so you can leapfrog Lewis on your pit strategy.Gunther! Do you want the latest software to go with your Ferrari engines for the rest of the year?Aw come on Maurizio, don't do that to me!!!!!Do it Gunther!!!Yes sir!! (Click)

Hello this is VijayVijay this is Toto, you want to keep residence in London better let my boys pass anytime I want

same thing...MB has 3 votes as does Renault (2)

_________________One.The best song ever written....thanks BonoI am the Number 1Tifosi

Well, I don't. The conspiracy theory IMO is wild and far off the mark. I have to admit I thought the same about crashgate, though.

Agree with you on Crashgate, but I just can't believe this one. First off, I don't think Haas would do it. It would destroy their image forever if it gets out, it would be ridiculously hard to keep under wraps, and it cost them a chance to get some wonderful publicity by finishing the first race in 2nd in the WCC.

Now, how it really did happen is a question that may lead to heads rolling. But I don't buy the conspiracy theory for a second.